• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why did djt steal documents from the White House at the end of his term?

Why did djt steal documents from the White House at the end of his term?

  • Total voters
    50
Ethel2 said:
I will butt in on this.
I am THRILLED that there will be a special master to review the documents found to be illegally possessed by the jackass. This will remove one more excuse that he and his merry band of MAGATS could belch forth. He wanted a special master and he got one. When (not if) the special master concurs that there were many many documents in the possession of the jackass that didn’t belong to him there’s one less reason for hope for him.
I will enjoy watching him squirm for months now. If I were him I would be very very worried. The walls of justice are closing in on him.
Click to expand...
Your reaction is more in line with what I would expect to hear from never-Trumpers
 
trouble13 said:
If that is determined to be true, I guess I would call it unlawful possession.
Click to expand...
So if I have no right to posses the jewelry from the jewelry store, and if I removed the jewelry from the jewelry store (where it was suppossed to be), that would be unlawful possession not theft?

Why all the mental gymnastics to extend DJT?
 
Ethel2 said:
I don’t recall ever stating that Gaetz is getting indicted. Besides, this isn’t about Gaetz. Or Jordan. It’s ONLY about the crimes committed by your hero the jackass.
Garland has promised to apply the law evenly. I guess you know what THAT means. It doesn’t matter if it was Joe Blow committing these crimes or the former president. If there’s a case (and there is) he will see that justice is done.
Don’t you worry. I will get back to you when he is indicted. I will get back to you when he is charged. I will get back to you when a trial date is set and I will get back to you when he is convicted.
As of now he is innocent. That won’t last. It’s not looking too good for your guy right now. Not that I expect you to admit it.
Click to expand...
Of course it does not look good right now. The prosecution is only telling us what they want us to hear.
 
Ethel2 said:
You have no idea who is or is not satisfied with her decision.
As I wrote, I am thrilled with it.
Click to expand...
You should be good with her decision and so should everyone. It was a fair ruling.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Lol.

Releasing what the witness told them would be practically the same as releasing the witnesses identity.

You are making a dishonest arguement.
Click to expand...
That mayor may not be true but it is a good recent not to release their statement if it is true. That excuse works for now. It won't if they indict. The defendant has the right to see all the evidence against him.

The problem here is with the people that are assuming that is why they will not release the information. They also may ne hiding it because it's very flimsy evidence and they don't have a very good case to begin with.
 
trouble13 said:
Of course it does not look good right now. The prosecution is only telling us what they want us to hear.
Click to expand...
And it’s pretty damning, isn’t it.

Still innocent. But that won’t last.
 
Logician Man said:
Keep lying in that bed you made for yourself. Just lets the forum see you do not debate ( I use that term very loosely in your case ) in good faith. Nighty-night.
Click to expand...
Your hysterical theatrics are boring me.
 
trouble13 said:
You should be good with her decision and so should everyone. It was a fair ruling.
Click to expand...
The SM findings are due at the end of November. Until then there likely won’t be any important news about this.
However there are many other charges the jackass faces.
Enjoy the ride.
 
trouble13 said:
It's not shocking at all but the fact remains that they are hiding more than just the persons identity if there even is one.

They could release what the witness told them without releasing their identity. You are making a dishonest argument for their defense.
Click to expand...
That is flat out ridiculous. What the witness told them could pinpoint who said it.
 
trouble13 said:
If that is determined to be true, I guess I would call it unlawful possession.
Click to expand...
nope, that would be stealing

You know, rule of law and all that inconsequential stuff🤪
 
Ethel2 said:
The SM findings are due at the end of November. Until then there likely won’t be any important news about this.
However there are many other charges the jackass faces.
Enjoy the ride.
Click to expand...
I don't think so...

www.bloomberg.com

DOJ Asks Appeals Court To Intervene In Mar-a-Lago Document Fight

The US Justice Department asked a federal appeals court to immediately step into the fight over documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and allow investigators to resume using documents with classified markings in a criminal probe.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com
 
mrjurrs said:
While djt has hinted at declassifying all of the documents (something he has the power to do but can't do by himself), his attorneys have made no such claim in court.

So why did he steal those documents from the government?
Click to expand...
Definitely profit. He had to find some way pay his rent and car insurance. I don’t know the price the documents the FBI told him to lock up would fetch, but the nuclear codes he reportedly stole, Putin will pay top dollar for. 😝
 
Logician Man said:
Why don't you try to contact Trump's hand-picked/appointed Republican judge who approved the search warrant who obviously deemed there was "probable cause" ( hence the 'approved' search warrant ), and ask her that question? See if she gets back with you, and divulges the info you seek to you personally.
Click to expand...

Types of Federal Judges

www.uscourts.gov www.uscourts.gov

Judge Reinhart is a Magistrate Judge, meaning he is selected by the Judges of the district, not an Article III Judge the President selects and is in a Senate confirmable position.

WW
 
trouble13 said:
I think they need to reveal the source of their reasonable suspicion. It's their burden to meet.
Click to expand...

They will, at trial if an indictment is brought.

trouble13 said:
A cop can't just randomly pull over someone with a bunch of pro-drug bumper stickers and cite that as probable cause to search his vehicle.
Click to expand...

Correct.

They must have probable cause and take it to a Judge for a search, unless the vehicles operator consents to a search without one. Just like the DOJ when to the Judge to authorize the search warrant based on the probable cause material presented to the Judge.

WW
 
trouble13 said:
Her decision protects the integrity of the governments case because she is closing the door on Trump potentially making those arguments in the future. He got the SM that he agreed to and the SM certified the evidence. I honestly don't understand why everyone isn't satisfied with her decision.
Click to expand...

You appear to not understand what a Special Master does, they do not "certify" the evidence. They separate the evidence into groups and recommend to the Judge.

WW
 
trouble13 said:
Her decision protects the integrity of the governments case because she is closing the door on Trump potentially making those arguments in the future. He got the SM that he agreed to and the SM certified the evidence. I honestly don't understand why everyone isn't satisfied with her decision.
Click to expand...
We care about national security.
 
trouble13 said:
Your arguments are wildly dishonest. Rejected!
Click to expand...
I'm sure the mafia wholeheartedly agrees with you that every source should be revealed to the public before an arrest is made.
 
trouble13 said:
If that is determined to be true, I guess I would call it unlawful possession.
Click to expand...

1663629690566.webp


Luckily there is a federal law for that.

Oh wait, that was one of the laws cited by the DOJ in it's probable clause pleading to Judge Reinhart to get the search warrant.


WW
 
trouble13 said:
I think they need to reveal the source of their reasonable suspicion. It's their burden to meet.

A cop can't just randomly pull over someone with a bunch of pro-drug bumper stickers and cite that as probable cause to search his vehicle.
Click to expand...
You are grossly mistaken. The DOJ has no obligation to meet any burden beyond what a judge finds to be reasonable.
 
neil said:
It's about perpetuating this Orwellian cognitive dissonance narrative that Donald Trump was never POTUS & "inexplicably" got ahold of classified documents; he stole them somehow. It's spin that the mainstream media puts out there for Leftist cult consumption, not for the general public.
Click to expand...
Enjoying the ‘shrooms?
 
It should be common knowledge at this point, that Trump acquired these documents by keeping them after people brought them to him. No, Trump did not rappel into the vault and snatch them. Every one of those documents has a paper trail of its own, and the DOJ already has that.

The law dictates he does not get to keep those documents. That doing so is a crime in and of itself. Trump's custodian and/or Trump lied and Trump kept them, after swearing they didn't have them.

I would say there is a decent chance that the DOJ has known exactly what was taken (and therefore, also, what they have not yet found) since before the FBI first visited Mar A Lago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom